6 ms·

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security

> Wanting to end a war that's been at a stalemate for 3 years doesn't mean sympathy or treason I find it so hard to take this point seriously. Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm. They have broken treaties before. Even still, why should the US care if Ukraine wants to keep defending itself from Russian aggression? They are a primary geopolitical rival and the ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment to directly weaken them is massive compared to almost any other defense related use of it. What’s more than this, we would be abandoning an ally and signaling that it is safe for countries to do these invasions without significant pushback. The destabilizing result of this will be felt around the world.

arandomusername 2y ago
> Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line. > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment But that's not the only thing getting sent. > we would be abandoning an ally What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.
- LPisGood 2y ago
  > Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. > But that's not the only thing getting sent. This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine: 1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence
  - arandomusername 2y ago
    > Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight. > This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? > Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.
    - dralley 2y ago
      >Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible. Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.
      - arandomusername 2y ago
        So do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire? > Russia will keep the war going with or without us Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
        dralley 2y ago
        That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones. It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did. It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others. Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies. Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.

arandomusername 2y ago

> Without security guarantees, you are asking Ukraine to “end the war” and give up massive territory and give Russia plenty of time to re-arm Plenty of time for Ukraine to re-arm as well. Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line. > ROI of sending Ukraine our old equipment But that's not the only thing getting sent. > we would be abandoning an ally What alliance did US and Ukraine have? They were friendly but there wasn't any sort of alliance. No defense pact.

LPisGood 2y ago
> Ukraine is the one kidnapping men on the streets to send to the front line Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. > But that's not the only thing getting sent. This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum? Even if not official allies with a mutual defense pact, United States had commitments and more importantly the following dual interests that support aiding Ukraine: 1.) Weakening Russia 2.) Global stabilization / aggression deterrence
- arandomusername 2y ago
  > Conscription as an enemy army marches through your borders is neither uncommon nor concerning. Having to rely on forcing men to the frontline is a clear indicator that the war is not going in your favour and you may need time to rebuild. It's also questionably immoral - forcing someone to fight. > This line is essentially devoid of meaning without naming anything specific. The point is that what USA is sending is tremendous ROI in terms of damage to its enemies. US has spent over $100B, in return for what? How has the average American benefited? Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? > Are you familiar with Budapest Memorandum Yes. And it's not a defense pact. US followed through on all commitments it made.
  - dralley 2y ago
    >Are you okay with sacrificing hundred of thousands of Ukrainian lives to damage your enemies? Is that acceptable? The US is not "sacrificing Ukrainian lives". Russia will keep the war going with or without us. American support saves Ukrainian lives and makes better outcomes possible. Without American support, Russia doesn't stop, they grind faster and demand more consessions.
    - arandomusername 2y ago
      So do you support Trump's demand for ceasefire? > Russia will keep the war going with or without us Actually, Ukraine and Russia were close to signing a deal in Istanbul, but were pushed not to by US/UK - allegedly. but logically, without US(and EU) support, Ukraine would have been more inclined to sign the deal which would have avoided hundred of thousands of lost lives.
      - dralley 2y ago
        That is total horseshit. That "deal" which was never close to being signed would have both required Ukraine to almost entirely disarm and also allow Russia to veto any future military partnerships Ukraine might have including non-NATO ones. It was a surrender on a timer doomed to fail just like Munich 1938 did. It would inevitably have been violated just like the two Minsk agreements were, just like the Black Sea grain initiative was, just like the humanitarian ceasefires in Mariupol and Debaltseve were, just like Prigozhin's deal was - and a dozen others. Ukrainian politicians have called the "UK pressure" narrative nonsense. Negotiations were called off because of what happened in Bucha + promises of arms supplies. Your narrative is propaganda. Ukraine didn't want to sign that deal because it was a total shit deal made by someone who broke all their previous deals, and the West was giving them an opportunity for a better one.